DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Growth rate, carcass characteristics and meat quality of growing lambs fed buckwheat or maize silage

  • Keles, Gurhan (Department of Animal Science, Faculty of Agriculture, Adnan Menderes University) ;
  • Kocaman, Veli (Department of Animal Science, Faculty of Agriculture, Adnan Menderes University) ;
  • Ustundag, Ahmet Onder (Department of Animal Science, Faculty of Agriculture, Adnan Menderes University) ;
  • Zungur, Asli (Department of Food Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Adnan Menderes University) ;
  • Ozdogan, Mursel (Department of Food Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Adnan Menderes University)
  • Received : 2017.04.14
  • Accepted : 2017.06.08
  • Published : 2018.04.01

Abstract

Objective: This study evaluated inclusion of buckwheat silage to the diet of growing lambs in terms of meat quality as compared to maize silage. Methods: Buckwheat, rich in total phenols (TP, 33 g/kg dry matter [DM]), was harvested at the end of the milk stage and ensiled in 40 kg plastic bags after wilting (294 g/kg silage DM). A total of 18 growing lambs ($21.6{\pm}1.2$) were individually fed isonitrogenous and isoenergetic total mixed rations (TMR) for 75 d that either contained buckwheat or maize silage at DM proportions of 0.50. At the end of feeding trail all lambs were slaughtered to assess carcass characteristics and meat quality. Results: Buckwheat silage increased (p<0.01) the DM intake of lambs as compared to maize silage, but had no effects (p>0.05) on live weight gain and feed efficiency. Carcass weight, dressing percentage, meat pH, water holding capacity, cooking loss, shear force ($kg/cm^2$), and total viable bacteria count of meat did not differ (p>0.05) between the treatments. However, TP content of meat increased (p<0.001) by feeding buckwheat TMR. Feeding buckwheat TMR also decreased (p<0.05) the b* values of meat. Conclusion: The results provide that buckwheat silage is palatable and could successfully include TMR of growing lambs with no adverse effects on performance, carcass and meat quality. Additionally, feeding buckwheat silage to lambs offers increased TP in meat.

Acknowledgement

Supported by : Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey (TUBITAK)

References

  1. Campbell CG. Buckwheat. Fagopyrum esculentum Moench. In: Promoting the conservation and use of underutilized and neglected crops, 19. Rome, Italy: Institute of Plant Genetics and Crop Plant Research, Gatersleben/international Plant Genetic Resources Institute; 1997.
  2. Holasova M, Fiedlerova V, Smrcinova H, et al. Buckwheat- the source of antioxidant activity in functional foods. Food Res Int 2002;35:207-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0963-9969(01)00185-5
  3. Leiber F, Kunz C, Kreuzer M. Influence of different morphological parts of buckwheat (Fagopyrum esculentum) and its major secondary metabolite rutin on rumen fermentation in vitro. Czech J Anim Sci 2012;57:10-8.
  4. Ben Salem H, Ates S, Keles G. Boosting the role of livestock in the vulnerable production systems in North Africa and West Asia region. Small Ruminant Congress 2014; 2014 October 16-18, Konya, Turkey. p. 49-65.
  5. Amelchanka S, Kreuzer M, Leiber F. Utility of buckwheat (Fagopyrum esculentum Moench) as feed: Effects of forage and grain on in vitro ruminal fermentation and performance of dairy cows. Anim Feed Sci Technol 2010;155:111-21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2009.10.007
  6. Kalber T, Kreuzer M, Leiber F. Silages containing buckwheat and chicory: quality, digestibility and nitrogen utilization by lactating cows. Arch Anim Nutr 2012;66:50-65. https://doi.org/10.1080/1745039X.2011.630213
  7. Kotsampasi B, Christodoulou V, Zotos A, et al. Effects of dietary pomegranate byproduct silage supplementation on performance, carcass characteristics and meat quality of growing lambs. Anim Feed Sci Technol 2014;197:92-102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2014.09.003
  8. Kuhnen, S, Moacyr JR, Mayer JK, et al. Phenolic content and ferric reducing-antioxidant power of cow's milk produced in different pasture-based production systems in southern Brazil. J Sci Food Agric 2014;94:3110-7. https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.6654
  9. Rice-Evans CA, Miller NJ, Paganga G. Antioxidant properties of phenolic compounds. Trends Plant Sci 1997;2:152-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1360-1385(97)01018-2
  10. Roleira FMF, Tavares-da-Silva EJ, Varela CL, et al. Plant derived and dietary phenolic antioxidants: Anticancer properties. Food Chem 2015;183:235-58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2015.03.039
  11. AOAC. Official Methods of Analysis. Association of Official Analytical Chemists, Arlington, VA, USA: AOAC International; 1990.
  12. Van Soest PJ, Robertson JB, Lewis BA. Methods for dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber, and non-starch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. J Dairy Sci 1991;74:3583-97. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(91)78551-2
  13. NRC. Nutrient requirements of dairy cattle. 7th ed. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 2001.
  14. Makkar HPS. Quantification of tannins in tree and shrub foliage: a laboratory manual. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers; 2003. p. 49-54.
  15. Van Keulen J. Young BA. Evaluation of acid-insoluble ash as a natural marker in ruminant digestibility studies. J Anim Sci 1977;44:282-7. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas1977.442282x
  16. Honikel KO. Reference methods for the assessment of physical characteristics of meat. Meat Sci 1998;46:447-57.
  17. SPSS. SPSS for Windows, Version 17, Chicago, IL, USA: SPSS Inc; 2010.
  18. Weissbach F. New developments in crop preservation. in: Jones DiH, Jones R, Dewurst R, Merry R, Haigh PM, Editors. Proceedings of the 11th international Silage Conference. University of Wales, Aberystwyth, UK, 1996. p. 11-25.
  19. Keles G, Kocaman V, Ustundag AO, Ozdogan M. Feeding value of buckwheat silage for lamb as compared to maize silage. The value chains of Mediterranean sheep and goats products. industry organization, marketing strategies, feeding and production system. Options Mediterraneennes, A, 2015; 115:559-62.
  20. Rodriquez AB, Bodas R, Prieto N, et al. Effects of sex and feeding system on feed intake, growth, and meat and carcass characteristics of fattening Assaf lambs. Livest Sci 2008;116:118-25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2007.09.016
  21. Ponnampalam EN, Dixon RM, Hosking BJ, Egan AR. Intake, growth and carcass characteristics of lambs consuming low digestible hay and cereal grain. Anim Feed Sci Technol 2004; 114:31-41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2003.12.005
  22. Altin T, Karaca O, Cemal i, Yilmaz O, Yilmaz M. The fattening and carcass characteristics of Kivircik and Karya lambs. Hayvansal Uretim, 2005;46:19-29 (in Turkish, with and English abstract).
  23. Fimbres H, Hernandez-Vidal G, Picon-Rubio JF, Kawas JR, Lu CD. Productive performance and carcas characteristics of lambs fed finishing ration containing various forage levels. Small Rumin Res 2002;43:283-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-4488(02)00014-7
  24. Santos-Silva J, Mendes iA, Bessa RJB. The effect of genotype, feeding system and slaughter weight on the quality of light lambs. 1. Growth, carcass composition and meat quality. Livest Prod Sci 2002;76:17-25. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-6226(01)00334-7
  25. Jacques J, Berthiaume R, Cinq-Mars D. Growth performance and carcass characteristics of Dorset lambs fed different concentrates: Forage ratios or fresh grass. Small Rumin Res 2011; 95:113-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smallrumres.2010.10.002
  26. Papi N, Mostofa-Tehrani A, Amanlou H, Memarian M. Effects of dietary forage-to-concentrate ratios on performance and carcass characteristics of growing fat-tailed lambs. Anim Feed Sci Technol 2011;163:93-8.
  27. Demirel G, Pekel AY, Ekiz B, et al. The effects of barley/triticale silage on performance, carcass characteristics, and meat quality of lambs. Turk J Vet Anim Sci 2013;37:727-33. https://doi.org/10.3906/vet-1303-53
  28. Hughes JM, Oiseth SK, Purslow PP, Warner RD. A structural approach to understanding the interactions between colour, water-holding capacity and tenderness. Meat Sci 2014;98:520-32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2014.05.022
  29. Andersen HJ, Oksbjerg N, Young JF, Therkildsen M. Feeding and meat quality- a future approach. Meat Sci 2005;70:543-54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2004.07.015
  30. Francisco A, Dentinho MT, Alves SP, et al. Growth performance, carcass and meat quality of lambs supplemented with increasing levels of a tanniferous bush (Cistus ladanifer L.) and vegetable oils. Meat Sci 2015;100:275-82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2014.10.014
  31. Ekiz B, Ozcan M, Yilmaz A, Tolu C, Savas T. Carcass measurement and meat quality characteristics of dairy suckling kids compared to an indigeneous genotipe. Meat Sci 2010;85:245-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2010.01.006
  32. Miura Y, Inai M, Honda S, Masuda A, Masuda T. Reducing effects of polyphenols on metmyoglobin and the in vitro regeneration of bright meat color by polyphenols in the presence of cysteine. J Agric Food Chem 2014;62:9472-8. https://doi.org/10.1021/jf5039508
  33. Maqsood S, Abushelaibi A, Manheem K, Al Rashedi A, Kadim IT. Lipid oxidation, protein degradation, microbial and sensorial quality of camel meat as influenced by phenolic compounds. Food Sci Technol 2015;63:953-9.